Premium
Confirmation of hepatitis C infection: a comparison of five immunoblot assays
Author(s) -
Zaaijer H.L.,
Vrielink H.,
ExelOehlers PJ,
Cuypers H.T.,
Lelie P.N.
Publication year - 1994
Publication title -
transfusion
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.045
H-Index - 132
eISSN - 1537-2995
pISSN - 0041-1132
DOI - 10.1046/j.1537-2995.1994.34794330015.x
Subject(s) - hepatitis c virus , western blot , virology , seroconversion , immunoassay , antibody , flaviviridae , microbiology and biotechnology , dot blot , hepatitis c , medicine , recombinant dna , hepacivirus , biology , virus , immunology , gene , biochemistry
BACKGROUND : Recently, new immunoblot assays for the detection of antibodies to hepatitis C virus (HCV) became available. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS : The performance of five confirmatory anti‐HCV immunoblot assays was studied with samples with known HCV antibody and HCV RNA status. The assays were a third‐generation strip recombinant immunoblot assay (RIBA‐3, Chiron Corp., Emeryville, CA), a second‐generation HCV blot (DB‐2 blot, Diagnostic Biotechnology, Singapore), the Wellcozyme HCV Western blot (Murex blot, Murex Diagnostics, Dartford, UK), an immunodot HCV assay (Matrix, Abbott Laboratories, Chicago, IL), and the third‐generation HCV line immunoassay (Liatek‐III, Organon Teknika, Boxtel, The Netherlands). RESULTS : Sensitivity on samples from 48 HCV RNA‐positive, second‐generation RIBA (RIBA‐2)‐positive persons and specificity on samples from 31 low‐risk donors was 96 percent or better for all assays. The sensitivity on 31 HCV RNA‐positive, RIBA‐2‐ indeterminate samples was as follows: Liatek‐III, 94 percent; RIBA‐3, 90 percent; Murex blot, 61 percent; Matrix, 55 percent; and DB‐2 blot, 39 percent. In testing 39 HCV RNA‐negative, RIBA‐2‐indeterminate donor samples, the percentage found to be negative was Liatek‐III, 77 percent; RIBA‐3, 67 percent; Murex blot, 49 percent; DB‐2 blot, 33 percent; and Matrix, 15 percent. The order of sensitivity on four HCV seroconversion series was (from high to low): RIBA‐3, Liatek‐III, DB‐2 blot, Murex blot, and Matrix; the differences were small. CONCLUSION : Detection of HCV antibodies was not refined by the addition of new HCV antigens (NS5, E2/NS1), but by improved classical antigens (core, NS3, NS4). Replacement of the commonly used RIBA‐2 will resolve the status of a high proportion of RIBA‐2‐indeterminate samples.